A War of Words

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_barrelomonkeys
_Emeritus
Posts: 3004
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm

Post by _barrelomonkeys »

Coggins7 wrote:
the murder of innocents including the elderly, children, and women that are not combatants.



Would you care to justify your use of this term to describe the accidental casualties inflicted on non-combatants in a war zone (especially when the enemy likes to fight dressed as civilians within urban areas (the Viet Cong used the same tactics--successfully))?



No, I wouldn't. :)

I was throwing out maybe one example of how someone could describe that catch all phrase. That phrase is a catch all for all sorts of "damage".
_barrelomonkeys
_Emeritus
Posts: 3004
Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2007 7:00 pm

Post by _barrelomonkeys »

Coggins7 wrote:
How about we also do away with the slur of "communism". That's a biggie for me. I get a bit pissy when people throw that word about. I mean really, unless you are talking about the specifics of Marxism, or perhaps just the common thoughts (oops, can't use common thoughts though can we) about socialist states that term themselves communist, WHAT do you really mean?



Historically, from the October Revolution onwards through the Cold War era, the terms "socialism" and "communism" were used interchangeably to denote various, or the same forms of egalitarian and/or utopian collectivism. The Soviets referred to their own system alternatively as "socialist" and "communist", even though in Marxian theory, pure communism is a state of governmentless anarchy.

I use "socialism' as a general term that takes into account the various forms of collectivist ideology, from "democratic socialism" to "communism". All are forms of economic and social collectivism, but with distinct differences in severity.

Let's do away with that pc crap. Let's talk, use actual thoughts and stark language, and do away with all these terms that really mean nothing!


Communism (socialism) is a term with clear, distinct meaning and connotation and clear implications in practice, and there are well over one hundred million bodies buried all around us attesting to the fact. There is nothing linguistically wiggly about it.


Coggins what is pro-life? I certainly hope I never hear anyone refer to themselves as that again.


Well, that's the name the movement began to call itself some decades ago. I would probably label myself, on this issue, in a nagative sense, by just calling myself anti-convienence abortion on demand. Pro-life means against the needless cultural, or lifestyle abortions that have made up the lion's share of abortions performed in this country sine Roe.

However, to your point, there is no doubt that the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are clearly as much for public political consumption as they are terms describing a political position on a set of issues.


Let's get some original thought and stop with all the euphemisms!

Those damn liberals. Or conservatives.


The above terms have clear meanings and demarcation lines between them, even though all who subscribe to each are not homogeneous.



Hey Coggins, my point was that the above terms are euphanisms. It's newspeak. It comes from all over not just the left.

http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/newspeak.htm

But you know that! ;P
Post Reply